Future Nonadvance Obligations: Preferences Lost in Metaphor


Part I outlines the elements of the debate in conventional terms. Part II offers an overview of the Experientialist epistemology and the role it assigns to metaphor in thought. The overview prepares the way for an explication in Part III.A. of the metaphoric concepts by which Article 9 is understood. Part III.B. makes explicit the underlying metaphoric concepts inherent in the opposing doctrinal positions taken in the Coogan- Gilmore debate on the question of future advance priorities. It also seeks to demonstrate how those concepts stipulated the terms on which the debate could be carried out, and how they spread to frustrate analysis of a related but distinct priority issue, the priority treatment of what have been termed future nonadvance obligations under Article 9. Part IV describes another incarnation of the Coogan-Gilmore debate and the practical consequences of the hiding power of metaphoric reasoning.


Commercial law, Metaphor, Priorities of claims and liens, Secured transactions, Uniform Commercial Code, Collateral security, Legal discourse



F. Stephen Knippenberg (University of Oklahoma Law Center)



Publication details



All rights reserved

Peer Review

This article has not been peer reviewed.

File Checksums (MD5)

  • pdf: 2281fa0ee32838f9dda5e76e950d4e26